Benchmark suite

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:25 AM, downs <default_357-line at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Gregor Richards <Richards at codu.org> wrote:
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:43 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> As you may know recently the Computer Shootout site has dropped many
>>>>> languages, among them there's D, Psyco (Python), etc. People that like Ruby
>>>>> language (and Jruby, etc) have created a benchmark suite, useful to tune
>>>>> implementations, compare their performance, spot some bugs, spot some
>>>>> performance bugs, etc:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-benchmark-suite
>>>>>
>>>>> A similar performance suite may be created for D too, but to not put
>>>>> blinders on the eyes it's essential to add to such suite some benchmarks in
>>>>> other languages too, like Java (for the GC), C or C++ with GCC (for general
>>>>> optimization), and maybe more.
>>>>>
>>>>> As starting point the programs of the Shoout are fine, but I think few
>>>>> other things can be added (to benchmark exceptions, compiling time, and some
>>>>> other interesting things that the Shootout doesn't benchmark now).
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye,
>>>>> bearophile
>>>>>
>>>> I'd imagine the Computer Shootout has only dropped many languages on
>>>> the newer platforms since there aren't implementations for them.
>>>> Getting GDC to work on x86-64 is a daunting task, or so I've heard.
>>>> D's still in all the older benchmarks.
>>> Yeah, getting GDC to work on x86_64 is crazy. First you have to build it,
>>> then you have to install it! And at that point, you have to run it for it to
>>> do anything, but how am I supposed to know how you run binaries?! Egad, I
>>> can't be expected to figure this completely insane system out!
>>>
>>>  - Gregor Richards
>>>
>>
>> Snyde demeanor aside, I'm talking more complex problems, like weird
>> linking issues and binaries that crash on running for no apparent
>> reason.
>
> Works here .. are you perhaps using a certain distribution's binary versions? Those 4.2 files that are known to crash on trivial testcases?
>
> (If yes: don't do that then)
>

I've only tried building it once and ended up with a compiler that
built crashy EXEs, but I don't run x86-64, I was only trying to get it
working on a friend's machine.

I've just heard of a lot of people having problems with it, is all,
and am suggesting that that's a possible reason why Alioth hasn't get
added D to the new archs.